They're not disobeyed as such but our understanding of how the system inside a singularity works is not well defined. My very uneducated guess is that at a singularity the laws of physics change, rather than disobeyed. As I mentioned in a previous thread works perfectly well in a blackhole, as far as science knows it's perfectly accurate.

However this equation clearly does not work at the singularity because when the radius of the Schwarzschild radius is 0 you get division by 0 problem a major problem lol.

So either division by 0 is possible (which it isn't) or the laws of physics change somehow so this equation is completely different when

(Original post by EternalLight)
They're not disobeyed as such but our understanding of how the system inside a singularity works is not well defined. My very uneducated guess is that at a singularity the laws of physics change, rather than disobeyed. As I mentioned in a previous thread works perfectly well in a blackhole, as far as science knows it's perfectly accurate.

However this equation clearly does not work at the singularity because when the radius of the Schwarzschild radius is 0 you get division by 0 problem a major problem lol.

So either division by 0 is possible (which it isn't) or the laws of physics change somehow so this equation is completely different when

(Original post by Sonechka)
The Universe cannot exist (as-is) without laws, but can laws exist independently and thus entail the absence of nothing?

I think that's not the point. The point is, we are unable to recognize anything, without seeing it's different to something else.
Laws of physics for example, are surely different to material objects they determine, and the objects are different to them.
The law is not a material object, nor the reaction, but the fact the objects always react in a very particular manner. This fact exists, but what actually makes it, is a question we don't have an answer for, though it would be inacurrate to say that the fact is nothing, as it clearly takes place so it is something, by our understanding.

(Original post by PTMalewski)
I think that's not the point. The point is, we are unable to recognize anything, without seeing it's different to something else.
Laws of physics for example, are surely different to material objects they determine, and the objects are different to them.
The law is not a material object, nor the reaction, but the fact the objects always react in a very particular manner. This fact exists, but what actually makes it, is a question we don't have an answer for, though it would be inacurrate to say that the fact is nothing, as it clearly takes place so it is something, by our understanding.

It is "something" in the loosest sense, as syntax for instance is "something", but whether it exists independently and is something independently is another question. The Universe can't exist as-is without laws/axioms/some sort of framework for the processes within it, but these things do not exist independently to the Universe either, and so saying that laws, when they exist as a precondition for the "creation" (sic) of the Universe, are "something" doesn't make sense.

(Original post by PTMalewski)
How do we know this? Do mathematical laws are nonexistant untill we use them on numbers?

Abstractly, I'm not referring to the application of a law to its object, but to the very existence of the object. If doesn't exist in any sense at all, any statements about it are meaningless, including statements which would be tautological when applied to existing objects ( and so on).